And when they hear stuff like the quote i just said, they scoff at it a lot of times, like, how would the british not understand what was going on? That's that sounds like a ridiculous excuse. I hear this a lot, but what you have to remember is that this is the early 19 twenties. There's no internet, and the vast majority of british policy makers have never met an arab, even a non british jew. They have no idea what's going on in palestine, and all they can do is go off of what they're told. Well, how are they getting that information? If you're a british policy maker and you hear there's a vote coming up on an issue concerning palestine, you look around britain for someone who knows about palestine, and who do you find? Usually they found reim weitsman. So all of the information that the vast majority of the british public as well as the british leadership is getting is either directly from the zionists, through propaganda, through publications like the guardian, whose editor was a committed zionist and worked directly with weitsman on public relations planning. Or else they got it through a regular government chain of information. And how did that government chain of information work? When michael ionides lays this out too, he says it was undeniable that the zionists had means of reaching public and parliamentary opinion in england which the arabs did not command and never learned to create. Consequently, the main channel open to the arabs in palestine itself transmitted through the local administration to the colonial office. This would reach the secretary of state for the colonies at times of crisis when palestine affairs demanded the attention of the cabinet as a whole. There was thus only one member who had direct contact with the full weight of arab argument and pressure, the colonial secretary himself. The other members, for the most part, had no direct knowledge of affairs within palestine itself, but were open to the persuasive influence which the zionist organiz organization was able to bring to bear through the press and parliament by personal pressure upon ministers. The zionists chose shrewdly when they ded that great britain should be entrusted with the task of bringing the state of israel into existence. A democracy whose government could be pushed by a public and parliamentary sentiment which is highly susceptible to propaganda, was the best choice. There might be people out there still choking on the idea that the british government is enacting policies that most of the cabinet ind parliament know nothing about, like its disavowal of responsibility. But honestly, there's probably no other way to run a global empire, certainly not back then. You member the us. Congressman charley wilson. They made a movie about him with the tom hanks. Charley wilson's war, not a bad movie. Basically, it's the story of this obscure congressman and a few of his committed allies in the intelligence community, who were able to, almost by themselves, conduct a private war against the soviet union when the soviets invaded afghanistan the late seventies and through the eighties. How wis that possible? Well, think about it. You're a congressman from montana or something, called to vote on some money for weapons to go to the afghan fighters. You made it to congress talking about farm subsidies. What do you know? About afghanistan, if you're one of the rare statesmen who actually takes the im to question it, instead of just following the party line, you ask around to see who knows about afghanistan. And who do people send you to? They send you to charley wilson. He tells you all about it. Whut r yougoing to argue with him? What do you know about afghanistan? He's an expert. You don't know anything. Going to take his word for it. Nd, you don't have time for this. You've got a vote on lama sterilization at three o'clock. You got to go. So you see how it works. I mean, it's not corruption evidence of a broken system, necessarily, just a feature of massive democratic bureaucracy that special interest groups have always been able to find outsize influence because of the difference in commitment between them and the people who oppose them. When it's a cause with two hard corps constituencies, maybe as a policy maker, you can kind of step out and take a risk. You' got somebody backing you up. At least maybe you risk upsetting the fossil fuel industry if it's going to get you a bunch of votes. Financial support from the green energy and environmental groups, right? But sometimes there's a huge delta between the costs and benefits of supporting one side or other of a question. If you're a british politician back then you're going o make a lot of rich and powerful enemies.